18.04. Duty to Expedite Litigation [Rule 3.2]

A lawyer has an ethical duty to expedite litigation.  The obligation here is to prosecute cases in a timely manner.  Certainly, there are times that a lawyer will need to seek a delay or extension of time.  Such delays are proper so long as there is a reason other than just to delay the proceeding.  The rule says that the test to determine whether this rule has been violated is objective and a lawyer should ask, “whether a competent lawyer acting in good faith would regard the course of action as having some substantial purpose other than delay.”[1] It is not appropriate to seek a delay solely to prevent the other side from obtaining redress to protect the financial interests of the client.[2]  Of course time may the only thing standing between the client and a judgment against them, and it seems strange that the rule would prohibit a lawyer from taking steps to protect the client from collection of the judgment.  This may be a rule that is more aspirational than enforceable.

One last note – recall that Rule 1.3 requires a lawyer to be “diligent” – which is very similar to requiring the lawyer to expedite litigation.  The difference is that Rule 1.3 applies generally to all types of representation while Rule 3.2 is limited to “litigation” matters.  Of course, a lawyer who fails to expedite a litigation matter also fails to act diligently and violates both rules.

[1] ABA Rule 3.2, Comment [1].

[2] ABA Rule 3.2, Comment [1].